Sunday, February 23, 2020

TorrentFreak's Latest News

 

Copyright Troll Now Has its Own Piracy Tracking Tool
Ernesto, 23 Feb 09:18 PM

Three years ago, Strike 3 Holdings had never filed a single lawsuit, but today the company has thousands of cases on its record.

These lawsuits are being filed across the United States, targeting people whose Internet connections were allegedly used to download and share copyright-infringing content via BitTorrent.

In the case of Strike 3, this refers to adult videos that are made available via the Blacked, Tushy, and Vixen websites. The company's legal campaign has kept the courts busy and contributed to a record-breaking breaking number of piracy lawsuits.

Last summer the company suddenly stopped filing new lawsuits in federal court, but in December its efforts started up again. While the new complaints were very similar to the previous ones, there is a striking difference.

Previously, Strike 3 relied on evidence from the German company IPP International, which tracks file-sharing activity that takes place via BitTorrent networks. However, in the new cases Strike 3 is relying on evidence produced by its own tracking system.

"Plaintiff has developed, owns, and operates an infringement detection system," Strike 3 wrote. In a complaint filed this week, it gets more specific by adding a name for its system: 'VXN Scan'.

"Using VXN Scan, Plaintiff discovered that Defendant used the BitTorrent file network to illegally download and distribute Plaintiff's copyrighted motion pictures," Strike 3 informed a Virginia federal court.

The switch to the in-house tracking system coincided with Strike 3's hiatus in filing new federal lawsuits. It's unclear, however, why that happened. It could be an effort to save costs or the company may have severed its ties to IPP International for another reason.

The mention of the new detection system was highlighted by defense attorney Jeffrey Antonelli who also observed another change in Strike 3's strategy. In addition to the torrent hash, the copyright holder now lists a file-hash as evidence as well.

This addition may very well be a response to a recent order in a Washington federal court, where Judge Zilly ordered Strike 3 to pay $47,777 to cover the fees and costs of an accused man. In this case, the Judge noted that torrent hashes are not sufficient to pinpoint an infringing file.

The complaint also mentions that the defendant is not the subscriber of the linked IP-address. This case address was previously mentioned in another case, so it's possible that Strike 3 obtained extra information about the alleged pirate from the account holder.

Whether the new complaint and in-house tracking system will be able to withstand scrutiny from defense lawyers has yet to be seen. Thus far, Strike 3's technology hasn't been tested in court.

That said, the description does raise some questions. According to the adult video producer, VXN Scan doesn't "upload content to any BitTorrent user" because "it is incapable of doing so." At the same time, however, the defendants are accused of "downloading" pirated content.

Technically, a tracking system that merely downloads content can't prove that other users downloaded anything, only that they uploaded material. That said, the complaint would still be valid if defendants only uploaded files, when they are not authorized to do so.

All in all, it's clear that Strike 3 doesn't plan to halt its legal efforts anytime soon. The company previously started experimenting by filing lawsuits in county court and with its own tracking system, the related scheme may become even more profitable.

A copy of Strike 3's complaint mentioning the new VXN Scan detection system is available here (pdf).

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.

YouTube Fair Use: Documentary Makers Defeat Gaye, Thicke, Bee Gees & Jackson
Andy, 23 Feb 01:20 PM

Late last year, TorrentFreak covered issues facing Copy-Me.org, a group dedicated to informing the public on copyright-related matters.

As architects of the web-series Creativity Delusion, Copy-Me had published an episode entitled "Geniuses Steal", which explored the notion that no one really creates something out of nothing and even the greatest minds rely upon the inspiration of others. Unfortunately, the work fell victim to claims from not one but four separate directions.

According to the automated claims that appeared in the group's YouTube panel, their use of snippets of songs by Marvin Gaye, Robin Thicke, Bee Gees and Michael Jackson constituted an infringement of the various labels' rights, despite being fairly obvious examples of fair use.

However, after a bold fightback, Copy-Me has now emerged victorious, as the group's Alex Lungu explains.

"The claims in question were on samples from different songs we used to talk about the ethical & legal problems when dealing with art and copyright. The Marvin Gaye vs Blurred Lines case is one of the biggest copyright suits ever. Marvin Gaye's family won five million dollars and we find that insane," Lungu informs TF.

"So to prove how similar Marvin Gaye's song is to plenty of other songs from its time, we played them side by side with You Should Be Dancing (Bee Gees), Don't Stop 'Til You Get Enough (Michael Jackson), Everybody Dance (Chic) and September (Earth, Wind & Fire).

The group received copyright claims on four samples – Got to Give It Up, Blurred Lines, You Should Be Dancing and Don't Stop 'Til You Get Enough. That meant that Sony Music Entertainment and Universal Music Group got to play ads against the documentary show, even though Copy-Me never monetized the content in the first place.

"I filed disputes immediately on the grounds of fair use. We used small samples and we didn't affect the owner's market, so I knew the video was safe," Lunge says.

"But the thing with Youtube's copyright claim system is that it doesn't matter how legal or illegal the use is. It's in its own world. The copyright claimant is the judge and jury and there's no third party assessing the claim. There's no penalty if the claim is wrong or the claimant lies. So you're left with reading up on the law, fully understanding the forms YouTube asks you to fill and hoping for the best."

The responses to the disputes were mixed. Three received absolutely no response from the claimants and after 30 days waiting, were automatically dropped by YouTube's system. But that still left the fourth claim and dispute concerning Don't Stop 'Til You Get Enough up in the air. That proved less easy to purge.

"One dispute was rejected (Michael Jackson, Sony Music Entertainment/SME), so there was probably a real person there who thought they can actually make money off our work. So we were left with a video which was monetized in some countries by SME on the grounds that SME alone thought we were illegally using their song – which we weren't," Lunge says.

Lunge admits that at this point, he was "a bit afraid" to file an appeal on the grounds that he would have to give all of his personal information to Sony who could then sue him or delete the documentary. Again, with no oversight or penalty if their claim wasn't valid, all "on the whim" of a "company intern".

Lunge decided to go all the way, filed an appeal and explained himself yet again. He received no reply but with the clock ticking, things went his way. One month later the appeal expired and the claim against the documentary was released. Nevertheless, that wasn't without cost. Not counting all of the administrative work and upheaval, it still took two months to counter all of the claims and get back on an even keel.

"That's an incredible amount of time to have your video in copyright purgatory. I can't even imagine what must go on inside someone's mind who makes Youtube videos for a living," he says.

"There are plenty of completely legal uses one can make with a song, without asking for any permission: criticism, parody, quotation and so on. Automated claims will never distinguish between legal and illegal ones. Only a judge can do that, but it's insane to think one should decide for the thousands of videos uploaded every second.

"And I am genuinely concerned about the nature of online videos when big platforms like Youtube and Facebook will be forced to abide by the new European Directive on copyright filters," Lunge concludes.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.

 
 
Powered by Mad Mimi®A GoDaddy® company

No comments: